Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Warrantless search - Rogers County
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ef9turbo" data-source="post: 3960240" data-attributes="member: 790"><p>“Unreasonable searches or seizures-<strong><em>WARRANTS, ISSUANCE OF.</em></strong>“</p><p></p><p>That’s your issue there. Vehicles don’t have the same expectation of privacy and warrantless searches can be done if it is reasonably contemporaneous with the stop. All that is needed is PC. The stop was conducted with PC per your own words. 10 minutes is reasonable. It was contemporaneous with the stop as the free air sniff occurred DURING the stop, which would in turn reasonably extend the duration of the said traffic stop to conduct a warrantless search. </p><p></p><p>So to answer your questions:</p><p></p><p>Did the deputies in this instance:</p><p>1) Violate his right as a person to be secure in his person, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure? <strong><em>NO, because it was contemporaneous with the stop, which was legal. </em></strong></p><p>To answer that it is necessary to check off the requirements:</p><p>Did they:</p><p>2) Search persuant to a warrant? (No.) <em><strong>No, because a warrant was not needed. </strong></em></p><p>3) Issued upon probable cause? (Partially. They established probable cause to search a third brake light, but not the rest of the car with a dog.) <em><strong>No, again because a warrant was not needed.</strong></em></p><p>4) Supported by oath or affirmation? (No.) <em><strong>Yes, but in this instance you’re referring to a “warrant” search, so again, no warrant was needed. </strong></em></p><p>5) Particularly describing the place to be searched? (No.) <em><strong>No, because describing a place is only needed in detail for a search warrant, not a warrantless search. </strong></em></p><p>6) Particularly describing the persons or things to be seized? (No.) <em><strong>No, again, describing particular persons or things to be seized is only required while completing a search warrant </strong></em></p><p></p><p>Again, I get you’re upset, but you continuously refer your sons stop to the requirements for a search warrant. The expectation of privacy of a vehicle has been beat to death and vehicles fall under the exceptions for a warrantless search. </p><p></p><p>The complaints you give wouldn’t work with your explanations, and a lawyer would tell you that. It’s a lost cause for you, but you could give it a shot. Any legit, competent lawyer will tell you that you won’t win. Goodluck though! Tell us how it goes. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" alt="🙂" title="🙂" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ef9turbo, post: 3960240, member: 790"] “Unreasonable searches or seizures-[B][I]WARRANTS, ISSUANCE OF.[/I][/B]“ That’s your issue there. Vehicles don’t have the same expectation of privacy and warrantless searches can be done if it is reasonably contemporaneous with the stop. All that is needed is PC. The stop was conducted with PC per your own words. 10 minutes is reasonable. It was contemporaneous with the stop as the free air sniff occurred DURING the stop, which would in turn reasonably extend the duration of the said traffic stop to conduct a warrantless search. So to answer your questions: Did the deputies in this instance: 1) Violate his right as a person to be secure in his person, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure? [B][I]NO, because it was contemporaneous with the stop, which was legal. [/I][/B] To answer that it is necessary to check off the requirements: Did they: 2) Search persuant to a warrant? (No.) [I][B]No, because a warrant was not needed. [/B][/I] 3) Issued upon probable cause? (Partially. They established probable cause to search a third brake light, but not the rest of the car with a dog.) [I][B]No, again because a warrant was not needed.[/B][/I] 4) Supported by oath or affirmation? (No.) [I][B]Yes, but in this instance you’re referring to a “warrant” search, so again, no warrant was needed. [/B][/I] 5) Particularly describing the place to be searched? (No.) [I][B]No, because describing a place is only needed in detail for a search warrant, not a warrantless search. [/B][/I] 6) Particularly describing the persons or things to be seized? (No.) [I][B]No, again, describing particular persons or things to be seized is only required while completing a search warrant [/B][/I] Again, I get you’re upset, but you continuously refer your sons stop to the requirements for a search warrant. The expectation of privacy of a vehicle has been beat to death and vehicles fall under the exceptions for a warrantless search. The complaints you give wouldn’t work with your explanations, and a lawyer would tell you that. It’s a lost cause for you, but you could give it a shot. Any legit, competent lawyer will tell you that you won’t win. Goodluck though! Tell us how it goes. 🙂 [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Warrantless search - Rogers County
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
